Nikon 800 PF | Is It The Best Lens For Wildlife on Nikon Z9/Z7/Z7II? Get Educated

[@Coolwildlife1]

I want to apologize to all of you who think this video was intentionally produced to be clickbait, thought it was a conspiracy against Nikon's success or just plain scientific crap. That was not my intent, far from it. This topic of high-resolution cameras and long focal length lenses was discussed as we were putting together the agenda for the panel discussion that I helped to organize for the Nikon Z9 User Experience (Pro Group) on shooting birds in flight with the Z9. (link below) It was decided that this topic would take too much time on the agenda and should be a topic on its own hence why Steven and I recorded the video because I thought it was worth sharing. I have been a Nikon shooter for over 20 years and I had no idea what Steven was talking about when he brought it up last week But I am glad he had the discussion with Tommy, Borgar, Ronald, and I so we understood it. If you take a look at my blog post on the field test I did with the Nikon Z 100-400 with the 1.4 and 2X teleconverters you will note that I was thrilled with the image quality that I was getting with the Z 2.0 TC and that was at f/11. (Link below) What this discussion did for me personally was make me give thought to whether I can get closer without the use of a TC and stay down at f/2.8, f/4 f/5.6 whenever possible and without disturbing the subject I am shooting. Secondly, it helped me to decide whether I would buy the Nikon Z 400 2.8 or the 800PF. Please know his video was not intended as a slap against the Nikon 800mm, I was already considering adding it to my bag. From the images Ricci and Steve have posted the image quality from this lens looks excellent and the bokeh is very nice. For those of you who have it or have ordered it, I have no doubt you'll love it and be producing killer wildlife images as a result. Nikon Z9 Birds In Flight Panel Discussion Video kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZTaiJahZr92fa8. Nikon 100-400 Field Test with Z 1.4 and 2X teleconverters blog coolwildlife.com/nikon-z-lenses/nikon-z-100-400-teleconverter-field-test-z-1-4-2-0/

[@BillFerris]

It seems to me the photographer who seriously considers an 800mm lens falls into one of two camps. In one camp, is the photographer who uses a shorter than 800mm lens but is frequently cropping to get a desired framing. A longer focal length from the same location will make the subject fill more of the frame and require less cropping. The other option this photographer has to "fill the frame" is to get nearer the subject. That's worth persuing - we always need to be open to ways to improve our field craft - but there does come a time when "getting closer" isn't a viable option. In the second camp is the photographer who works at 800mm with at least some frequency but owns a lens with a smaller aperture; a lens that doesn't collect as much light from the subject as the 800mm f/6.3 PF. Personally, I'm in the second camp. My standard wildlife kit is a D500 with a 200-500mm f/5.6E. The angle of view captured at the APS-C sensor matches the angle of view projected by a 750mm lens on a full-frame sensor. The 200-500's maximum entrance pupil diameter is 89mm. The 800mm f/6.3 PF on a Z8 or Z9 would basically be a wash in terms of reach. The angle of view captured by the full-frame body would be a skosh tighter. However, the 800mm f/6.3 PF has a maximum entrance pupil diameter of 127mm. That is a significant advantage in light-gathering compared to the 89mm entrance pupil of the shorter f/5.6 lens. I'd also be putting more than twice as many pixels on the subject; 45MP with the 800PF mounted to a Z8 or Z9 compared to 20MP with the 200-500/D500 combo. When the guest in the video talks about longer lenses only cropping deeper than shorter ones, he misrepresents reality. Regardless of lens aperture, a lens of focal length X puts fewer pixels on the subject than a lens of focal length 2X. The subject image projected by the longer focal length lens covers more of the sensor. That image covers twice the width and height, and four-times as many pixels as the image projected by the shorter focal length. Let's factor in the light-gathering power of the lenses. A 400mm f/4 lens has a 100mm entrance pupil diameter. A 600mm f/6.3 lens has a 95mm entrance pupil diameter. Some photographers might assume the 400mm f/4 captures more light from a subject than a 600mm f/6.3; a lot more. In fact, they're about the same (95mm vs 100mm) and, because the image projected by the longer lens will cover a larger area of the sensor, the longer lens will put more pixels on the subject. More than twice as many pixels. There are a lot of wildlife enthusiasts who shoot with APS-C cameras and 150-600mm consumer zooms. They know what it's like to handhold an effective 900mm focal length. That's the angle of view they're working with all the time. There are a lot of wildlife enthusiasts who shoot with full-frame cameras and lenses ranging from 500mm to 600mm in focal length. If those photographers are cropping, losing detail and increasing the visibility of noise as a result (cropping not only magnifies the imperfections in the image projected by a lens, it also throws away light and makes noise more prominent), upgrading to the 800mm f/6.3PF will increase reach, capture more light from the subject and make higher quality images, as a result. The challenge - other than financial :) - is to have the discipline to wait for photo ops when the subject is actually filling the frame. I think we tend to get into the habit of settling for photo ops that require significant cropping in post. A photographer who upgrades to a longer lens to address this "need" will only see improved image quality if they have the discipline to wait for the subject to fill more of the frame than is their habit. Only then, will they be taking advantage of what the longer lens offers. If they settle for the same loosely framed shots that created the need for a longer lens in the first place, they'll actually be settling for photo ops in which the subject is farther from them than when they were using the shorter lens.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Bill, thank you for the in-depth commentary. I agree with your take on getting closer to the subject to fill the frame wherever possible regardless of the lens being used. That is especially important when shooting at high ISO given the magnification of noise as we crop in. As you mention that is not always possible and as such the 800mm 6.3 becomes an excellent lens to have the bag if the subjects you shoot often require that focal length. I know a few professional shooters who are using the 800 and they love it. It performs well and it's weight is a huge advantage for hand-holding. I tend to shoot more in the 400-600 range so I opted for the Z 400 2.8 TC. When 800mm is required it works well with the Z 2X tele at 5.6.

[@BillFerris]

@@Coolwildlife1 thank you for replying to my comment. I do appreciate it. Here's wishing you great light and photo ops in 2024!

[@CharlieGroh]

Just ran across this vid...wow great info. Salient detail for me was what we actually are able to SEE when a print is on the wall, and I've always felt this way since doing my own printing...Photoshop resizing is just fine! I loved my D700, but sold it to a friend when moving up (and miss it) but he produces FINE wall art with those 12 super fat megapixels!

[@BillMaynard-we8hk]

Glad you found it helpful Charlie. I have many great wall hangers from the days of 12 MP as well.

[@cameraconspiracies]

He makes it sound like all you need is a 24mm prime for wildlife lol. I'm betting the 800mm shot would look substantially better than a cropped 400mm shot. Especially in video.

[@KungPowEnterFist]

The best wildlife lens would be a 10-5000mm zoom, with a constant f0.95 aperture, is only 1 inch long, weighs 1 oz, costs $5, comes with a lifetime unconditional warranty including intentional damage, works with every camera mount, 3000 stops of VR, waterproof at 6000 meters, and responds to brain wave commands. Everything else is a POS.

[@gyalbobhutia2825]

Very Informative and really cleared the many misconceptions we have about sharpness and image qualities

[@jeffreyneville9769]

Interesting video and I agree your best pictures are the ones where you can fill the frame with your subject (if desired) with the smallest Zoom or telephoto range but unfortunately nature many times has other ideas. The 400mm f2.8 w/1.4x tele activated and adding another 1.4x tele gives you 784mm @f 5.6 vs the 800mm @f6.3. Ricci's opinion was that he expected the 800PF to give better results than the 400 with the teleconverters, obviously you can use the 2x tele on the 400 @5.6 getting 800mm as well and many say the 2x converter works great on the new 400mm w/ TC. Cost does play a big factor however, if money was no issue I would get the 400 due to the versatility of the lens but @ 14K plus cost of TC (s) can't do it, 800mm f6.3 @ $6,500 might be able to do it. I use the 500PF a lot now but for small birds I still have to crop a good amount to get the image size of the small bird a decent size, sometimes you can't get closer without spooking your subject and that's a benefit of the 800mm as well, if you subject is very jumpy you have a better chance of getting the image being able to shoot a bit further away. With birds in flight many times when I have an Eagle trying to steal a fish from an Osprey the 500mm is just not enough the extra reach would help a lot. When your talking prints what is the largest size you would print with a 20MP sensor, with my Z9 I like the fact I can easily print 20 x 30 prints (which I do) at 250DPI I get mind blowing results. Have not done testing to see how big I can print with smaller resolution files (don't have the money to burn), most on-line print services only do 250 DPI anyway a high end personal printer in the $1,300.00 price point or higher can do the 300 DPI. I think if you shoot with the 800mm don't have to crop you can get a better 20 x 30 print vs cropping an image on a 400mm lens to look like the 800mm full frame result but resolution is smaller and the print can't be as good in my opinion.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Jeffrey I too am looking forward to seeing Ricci's comparison video for the 400 2.8 with 2X vs 800 6.3. I do shoot many of the larger birds with the 500 PF or if I'm not hiking around a lot the 600 FL.

[@stevenkersting3494]

The disadvantage of external teleconverters is that they are not matched, they are not part of the original optical design (except the 1.4x that comes with the f-mount 800/5.6). So I would also expect the 800pf to outperform the 400 w/ external TC's attached. But I wouldn't expect it to outperform the 400TC on a Z7/Z9 and cropped... as long as the image is taken with that crop in mind (i.e. as if a crop sensor was being used instead). For many, using a 2x on the 100-400 for an 800/11 result will be more than adequate for their needs... for most people's actual requirements really.

[@VABrowneMDPhD]

The discussion doesn’t mention that the longer focal length projects it’s entire image circle to the entire sensor. So, there are more pixels per square millimeter of the image and, therefore, more pixels on the subject than with a shorter focal length. Cropping the image in post production doesn’t increase the number of pixels covering the subject. It simply increases the relative proportion of the subject to the final cropped area. While the 400 mm f/2.8 lens with a matched teleconverter provides greater versatility, it costs almost 3 times the 800 mm f/6.3 PF lens.

[@stevenkersting3494]

I kind of address that where I point out that the 600mm lens generates slightly more resolution that a 50% area crop of the 400mm would (26 vs 20). It's the same effect as switching to a higher resolution sensor. But it is also important to note that the difference is only relevant if you are not otherwise scene or technique limited. If you are scene or technique limited then it is just more pixels on more blur (magnified blur). And the effect of more MP's on subject (oversampling) is typically far less than the numbers would imply... e.g. the 600/4G delivers 24MP on a 36MP D810 and it only increases to 26MP on the 46 MP D850.

[@EarlyBirdJP]

And weighs over a lb more.

[@irbis8801]

As I understand - 800 pf should have less resolution in red color, but in my experience I don’t see any problem in resolution at all. It’s excellent lens - I own one. Details on my photos on z8 are perfect. I had canon 300 mm f2.8 ( first version) and resolution on my r5 was not enough- I sold it. I bought rf 100-500 and resolution is much better, even that is 7.1 lens on 500 mm. 800 pf in my opinion is excellent lens. All comparisons show that in 800 mm range better to have 800 pf than 400 mm and 600 mm prims with teleconverter.

[@danielpoiree6705]

One important point is missing, I think… I’m certainly not the expert on this… I don’t question the discussion about the diffraction vs sensor size vs pixels as the light comes out of the lens and hits the sensor. However, it seems to me that post processing has been used for years to minimize the effects of at least some types of diffraction. But even more importantly, Nikon’s Z cameras, I think all of them, have built in diffraction compensation. I’ve read that it works well, and I’ve been very impressed with the very sharp and lack of visible diffraction (to me at least) using my Z7. I loved my D810, but the end result from a Z7 with a Z lens is far better than I was getting out of the D810. I have to believe that the in-camera diffraction compensation makes a big difference to the image as viewed. I’ve seen several initial reviews of the Z 800 f6.3 on a Z9 from people I trust and respect. Nobody I watched commented on any diffraction, only how sharp it was. The images posted didn’t have noticeable diffraction, not even zoomed in at 200%. I think you left out the fact that the camera minimizes the diffraction. In short, if there is diffraction coming out of the back of the lens, but the camera eliminates it, who cares? It’s not an issue on the photo. I wish you had included this in your discussion. Without it, your discussion would make sense for older cameras, but these days cameras are part lens, part sensor, and a BIG part computer to do things unheard of until very recently. I do hope you’ll update the video with some real tests. Otherwise, I think the information presented about diffraction is interesting, but probably isn’t applicable with modern cameras, at least not Nikon Z models using the lens discussed in this video. One other after thought: I think I’ve heard or read that one of the inherent advantages of the Phase Fresnel lens is that it corrects the diffraction (at least chromatic abboration), to a great extent. I doubt the charts used to document the diffraction vs sensor size vs pixels was made using Phase Fresnel lenses.

[@stevenkersting3494]

Yes, deconvolution sharpening can be used to reduce the *visible effect* of diffraction. That's actually what the "diffraction correction" option does for jpegs (Z7/9). But correcting for an error after the fact is never as good as not causing it in the first place.

[@malcolmstephens9999]

I thank you and Steven for this video. I watched all of this. I currently shoot with the D850 and still waiting on the Z9 I ordered. I have all f mount lenses 300 f/2.8, 500 f/5.6 pf, and 600 fl f/4. I think getting closer to your subject is the key to sharper images. I am going to buy a tragopan monal v2 blind. I shoot wildlife (mostly birds). This was eye opening I too thought I need the 800 6.3 but maybe not so much now. Thanks and keep up the good work!

[@Coolwildlife1]

Thanks for tuning it Malcolm, I think this press from Steven will be eye opening for many folks.

[@malcolmstephens9999]

I’m still probably going to get the 800pf but not sure if I should maybe sell my 600f4. That 800pf is going to be hard to not want! Decisions!!😆

[@simons9952]

small note from my side: the 800 5.6 f mount has a matched 1.25x TC, not a 1.4 TC (see 12:50)

[@Coolwildlife1]

Thank you for mentioning that there is a tuned 1.25 TC tuned for the 800 PF, I’m sure there will be a mix of folks using their 1.4 and 2.0 converters as well. Makes sense to pick up the tuned 1.25 to pair with the lens as well. I’d be very curious to have someone compare image quality for the 1.25 vs the 1.4.

[@dominiclester3232]

Lots of good info here, thanks! It was made perfectly clear as to how vital a wide aperture is for resolution, but with the implications of the old 12Mpix cameras would it be better to use a 24Mpix camera with a long f6.3 lens rather than a 46Mpix camera please? The other question I had was comparing the Z 600mm f6.3 and the Z800mm...would it be better just to crop please? Thanks.

[@SirIronJim]

Thanks for the Video, I found it very informative, as I am on the fence regarding the Z 800 PF, and the Z 400 2.8. I do currently have the Z 100-400 Lens along with both the Z 1.4 and 2.0 Tele-Converters. As much as I would love to have the Z 400mm 2.8, I find it hard to justify the cost of the lens since I'm at best, a hobbyist photographer. I do have Nikon's Z7-ll and the Z9 along with many of their S-Line Lenses, adding a Super Telephoto would complete the Line-Up of Z Lens that I currently have, so due to cost, I'll likely purchase the Z 800 PF as my final lens to add to my collection

[@Coolwildlife1]

I'm in the same boat Jimmy. I have the 100-400 with tele's, 500PF and 600 f/4. I'm trying to decide if I go 400 2.8 or wait for the new Z 600 f/4. The 800mm is more reach than I need for 90% of what I shoot but it looks like a great lens from the images I see coming out of it.

[@berniestang2616]

Me too !!! Can’t wait !!

[@TerryKontopoulos]

Wow! Opening eyes!!! Thank you!

[@Joe-kq5fr]

So if I get closer to my subject I do not need as high a quality lens? I know I don't need as long a focal length, but quality of lens? Have to disagree on that one.

[@Coolwildlife1]

That's the beauty of these discussions, we can all take what we heard and agree to disagree. Here's a clip from an article on understanding lenses, I thought you might enjoy the additional reading. "An inexpensive prime lens can generally provide as good (or better) image quality as a high-end zoom lens." www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

[@stevenkersting3494]

If you are closer the details are presented to the lens larger, so the lens doesn't have to be as sharp (able to resolve as small of details) in order to record the same image resolution. Of course, getting closer with the same quality of lens (or higher) is better.

[@Joe-kq5fr]

@@Coolwildlife1 No argument on a good prime being better than a zoom. But we are talking about a 800mm prime, and I do not think an inferior quality 400mm prime would give as good of results as say a 400mm lens of same quality as the 800mm. Thanks for the link. I am an amateur so always looking to learn and better understand all things photography.

[@stevenkersting3494]

@@Joe-kq5fr It's a lot like human vision; if your distance eyesight isn't that great it helps to get closer so you can see it clearly. E.g. 20/40 eyesight means you have to be half as far away *to see/resolve the same level of detail*... it works the same for camera lenses.

[@jasoncannon]

I have the d850 / Z9 and for wildlife (birds and such) my go to lenses are the 800 5.6 and the 500 PF. They are so different. If I can I shoot the 800 but that a tripod and a set up situation. If I can't use the 800 I go for the 500 PF its quick and easy to use. Focus is just as great with both and the sharpness is equally as great. I don't like the 500 with a tele converter, I don't love the TC's with any lens as it slows down the focus too much. If you are shoot backyard birds I guess thats fine but I far prefer focus speed over distance. All this being said.... I have the 800 PF and the Z400 2.8 on order. Every day I wonder why Im even waiting for the 400 ( ill probably just return it after it arrives). I have no intention of shooting large animals with it and for most birds it will require too much of a crop. And forget the TC's they are a good bandaid if you gotta do it all with 1 lens but focus speed is king and they slow the focus way too much. Honestly I think the 500 PF and the 800 PF is going to be a sort of dream team in wildlife (bird) photography. Kudos to Nikon btw the Z9 is the best camera ever created.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hey Jason, All very good observations on your part, I'm kind of in the same boat. I love the 500 pf for its weight and size for sure, it's great in the kayak. I'm sticking with my 600FL for the time being. I've been using the 1.4 on both the 500pf and 100-400 and haven't found a focus speed issue with BIF. Agreed, Nikon rocks with the Z9.

[@Interbeing_CDN]

Very technical and interesting perspective. I do understand some of the issues brought up, and living in Texas, I definitely experience heat/humidity and the negative consequences, but fail to understand how the Z 400mm TC with an additional 1.4x teleconverter mitigates the image degradation over the Z 800 prime when they are both shot through the same air at the same subject. With the higher ISO capabilities of the newer cameras, the 500mm f/5.6 PF has been very popular with bird photographers and I think the 800mm PF will also be a hit with them. At 5.5 lbs, it weighs even less than most 150/200-500/600mm zooms, which is remarkable when you think of it. There are many instances where I could use the extra reach and, as mentioned before, the Z 800mm PF and Z 100-400mm zoom would be a killer combo. At $6,500USD, it appears to be a great bargain and I am looking forward to seeing more reviews. Thanks!

[@Coolwildlife1]

I believe in the discussion point you are referring to we were speaking to the point of getting closer to the subject to mitigate those negative environmental attributes. The 400 2.8 shot through the same air at the same subject as the 800PF would have the same issues hence the reason to get closer to the subject if possible. I also agree that the 100-400 and 800 is a great combo, we just wanted to make folks aware of a few of the considerations when purchasing those longer focal length lenses, especially at 6.3 on high-resolution cameras.

[@stevenkersting3494]

Using both lenses from the same distance will impose the same environmental impacts. In which case you are resolution limited by what is available in the scene, and additional magnification of it won't make any difference (much like being technique limited). And I agree, the 800PF is a lot of lens for the money...

[@dance2jam]

@@Coolwildlife1 I might be wrong about this, but I believe that Steve would make the point that if both lenses were shot from the same distance the 800mm PF would reveal more environmental attributes because of it's magnification compared to the 400mm. Where that might change, of course, is if you cropped in to equivalent fields of view. Can you ask him about that and get an answer without throwing in many other variables? (just saw an answer from Steven above - if it's the same one).

[@1sim2clo]

Interesting talk thanks ! The 800 will be great for open fields-water and BIF where I can’t get close enough. The crop in post do have a limit either we would all be shooting with a 50mm 1.2 and crop in post. But yes you don’t need a 400mm, a 600mm and 800mm. I plan on keeping using my 80-400mm most of the time and the 800mm pf I certain situations or if want to do some close-up « portraits » of birds. Pricing and weight are so good. When walking 4-5h with the kit it makes a real life difference more than small image quality differences.

[@stevenkersting3494]

Part of the reason why cropping shows more limitations is because people don't take the crop into consideration when taking the picture. I.e. if you are going to crop the image down to an 800mm field of view you need to take the picture as if an 800mm lens is attached (the same as when using a crop sensor). The 800PF is definitely a lot of lens for the money.

[@1sim2clo]

@@stevenkersting3494 yes. The real limitation is how close we can (or want) to get with the subject. I was happy to do a bear portrait at 400mm f5.t rather than using my 35mm 1.8 😝.

[@1sim2clo]

Also will try to use this lens mostly in the early morning when the atmosphere is more calm and heat wave not much of a problem.

[@pawetura549]

Very difficult footage for me. I speak English, but a little ;-) Please tell me! I'm thinking about two possibilities: Option 1 - Nikon Z 400mm 4.5 + (occasional for birds) TC x2.0 Option 2 - Nikon Z 800mm 6.3 Short description: I will be using Nikon Z9. I don't use it from the lookout. I go on short photo trips. I walk in search of birds and animals (forest, by the water, bushes). Optionally, I use a tripod to observe birds from a distance in places I know. (e.g. nesting sites, bird patches and small islands in the lake). Has anyone considered using the Nikon Z 800 6.3 with an additional teleconverter, e.g. x1.4? Thank You and best regards!

[@Coolwildlife1]

Both are hand-holdable lenses, the 400 4.5 being shorter and lighter with more light-gathering capability when you need it. I'd look through your portfolio to see what focal length the majority of your images are taken at to determine which focal length best fits your needs. The 800mm is a great lens paired with the Z9 and if the majority of your images are shot at that focal length I'd go with the 800. If most are at shorter focal lengths then I'd take a look at the new 180-600 and the new 600PF as well.

[@johnvanderploeg]

I just want to point out the difference between resolution and sharpness. Resolution is simply a L x W measurement, generally given in pixels. Multiply L x W and you will get the area which is equivalent to the megapixel rating of a sensor. Resolution directly refers to the size of an image in pixels. Sharpness is a different story all together and exists independently of a cameras resolution. Sharpness is largely determined by the quality of the lens but in general will get a slight bump from higher resolution sensors. While getting close is always the best bet, the testing does show higher image quality from the 800 pf than even the new Nikon 600 f4 with the 1.4 TC at around 800 mm.

[@felixdamith1]

Very interesting.. it’s always good to learn something new .. , could you provide the link for the colour waves vs megapixels and maximum f stop chart … thank you

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Felix, the chart you are looking for is on pg17 of the source material that is posted in the description of this video

[@dance2jam]

It's extremely rare that I update a comment, but I thought that would be more helpful and appropriate should anyone make it through (or not) this video which was kindly done by "Coolwildlife1". If you got lost in the weeds, I decided to summarize what I believe were the main points (albeit I am not an expert on the physics of lenses, nor airy discs). Q1: CW1: If you had an unlimited budget, which is better for wildlife shooters, the 400mm f/2.8 TC + TC2.0 vs 800mm f/6.3 variable aperture PF VR S lens. The convoluted premise went something like this: Answer 1: (which lens is better for the viewer) a. Depends on what you shoot (true enough, lets say birders). b. depends on your personal abilities (to get close, hold the lens still), then lens, then sensor with the weakest link in the chain being the limiter. C. Resolution at f/6.3 may suffer because of the number of pixels exposed on the sensor. D. VR is not an advantage - and while Steve Perry and others can handhold at 1/200th of a second, wildlife does not sit still that long. Crop in at 400 percent on a high resolution sensor and check for hand shake and animal movement. E. VR is off anyway at high shutter speeds because the movement of the elements creates potential blurring of the image. F. If you get close enough to your subject the 400mm f/2.8 will outperform the 800mm PF because of diffraction limitations, G. The 400mm f/2.8 is more versatile (see counter argument by Steven down below). H. You can crop the 400mm image to mimic the 800 mm angle of view and magnification and essentially get the same image (perhaps slight drop off depending on distance from the target) because shot wide open at 2.8 there is less diffractive error limiting sharpness than at minimum aperture f/6.3. Which would Steven buy if he had an unlimited budget? Neither, because he owns the f-mount 400mm f/2.8. His argument against using a TC 2.0 with the new 400mm (stated in a round-a-bout way) is that the TC 1.4 that comes with the lens was built for the lens (i.e. is better than a TC bought off the shelf). Adding an external TC 2.0 is problematic as he went through three versions of the TC 1.4 to find one that matched the performance of his lens (not sure how he did that). Point is: If you are thinking of adding an external TC 2.0 to the new 400mm f/2.8 to get a 800mm f/5.6, don't. Crop instead and save the cash. At the same time, he states that the 400mm f/2.8 TC 1.4 is more versatile, but doesn't really take into account hand holding and traveling with one vs the other. He doesn't comment on the fact that being stuck on a tripod is also more limiting in terms of opportunities to photograph certain subjects in certain circumstances. This nice attempt by Coolwildlife1 to just have a discussion about what to buy/consider on a 400mm f/2.8 TC 1.4 with 2X converter vs 800mm f/6.3 quickly got off the rails and into the weeds. I don't mind the weeds, but I think this topic would be great for a separate podcast (KZbin video) that started from the beginning with a discussion of what diffraction is, and then take a deep dive perhaps segmented in parts fully explaining each variable as you go along. Never saw this as click bait, but I also believe that Steve needed to be redirected (perhaps also say when he asks repeatedly "does that make sense" = No Steve, it doesn't to our audience. Can you please take this from the beginning without adding random variables and explain one at a time. The bottom line - if I read this correctly - is that Steve believes "it all comes back to where we started" (i.e. what are you shooting and what are your abilities to hold still). The 400mm f/2.8 let's in more light (lower diffraction) and sharper images - if you can close the distance - and if not crop. Assuming you can handhold it and afford it. Maybe I should start a GoFundMe site.

[@TimLaytonDarkroomDiary]

Thanks for this video Bill. I think the 500PF on the Z9 or Z7II is the best of all worlds (Great Price, Great Resolution, Works fantastic with FTZ adapter) and is hand-holdable all day long. Sure, I wish it was F4 vs F5.6, but even if that was possible, the price would be much more. If I need a field of view that I could get with the 800 lens, just crop the image. The Topaz AI workflow can handle any upsizing that may be needed for larger prints.

[@Coolwildlife1]

I have been following your same workflow with the Z9 500PF combo. Here's a link to my RAW workflow video, I think you will find it to be very similar to what you described. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYeueYKboa5koqs

[@TimLaytonDarkroomDiary]

@@Coolwildlife1 Really good video Bill. We work very similarly. The only difference is that I have been cropping inside of GigaPixel for the extreme crops and that is producing better quality files. Not sure if that is a fluke or just my small samples, but it seems to be working really well so far.

[@雲裡蠍]

yes 👍

[@sigmonwhitener2951]

So if I use a 2.8 lens, but stop down to 11, I lose resolution? Odd because my file size does not reduce unless I crop. This whole discussion makes no scientific sense.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Sigmon, I get you, I had no idea this was the case either. If you really want to understand the science behind the discussion read the source data provided in the link in the description. That will help clarify what Steven was talking about.

[@stevenkersting3494]

You lose image resolution/details due to diffraction, the same as with any other form of blur. Imagine taking a picture completely out of focus; your file size will still be large, but there will be no image resolution/details recorded.

[@dance2jam]

@@stevenkersting3494 Steven, I can't think of a better person to answer the following question, so I came back here to ask. QUESTION: All mirrorless cameras (so I'm told) have issues with occasionally jumping to the background to focus instead of an object that is directly in front of them (much to the anguish of the shooter). One pro told me this might have something to do with masked pixel technology on mirrorless sensors. Do you know the real reason this happens and could you explain it or refer me to information that might do the job? Is it pixel size and binning that are to blame, and if so how? Do medium format cameras have the same issue (i.e. larger pixels). I'd love your thoughts on this issue that was not an issue with DSLRs. Thanks!

[@stevenkersting3494]

It's because things that are close to you tend to be quite out of focus relatively, and if it is out of focus the mirrorless PDAF system cannot see it. While the principle of phase detect autofocus is the same as with a DSLR, the way it is actually implemented is very different... I made a video from a presentation I gave on the topic a while ago (pre-Z9, but it still applies). The production quality is pretty low, but you will probably find it informative. kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHbbqHiDfLF1f6M

[@dance2jam]

@@stevenkersting3494 You bet and I'm going there now to watch. I did read last night about the difference in PDAF (I think it was a Samsung site) so I was on the right track, but I knew you could make better sense of it. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and your willingness to explain.

[@juju691]

Wow. That was an eye opener ! Brilliant

[@EarlyBirdJP]

He said, if you add a TC to a prime you would then have a telephoto lens? WHAT? I think it is two different things. So, if you crop a shot by 100% what does that leave you? 25% of the pixels?

[@aymericb8450]

There is a technical misinformation in this video. The Z9 has only 11million red pixel as 25% of pixels are red on sensors using bayer matrix, so the 800mm 6.3 can take advantage of cameras with much more pixels than the Z9. On laboratory tests, the effect of diffraction becomes visible at f11 on a 45MPX sensor. On the ground it may not be visible at F11 as things like heat distortion will have a much bigger impact.

[@stevenkersting3494]

Technically diffraction becomes "visible" in an output image at f/22 (green wavelengths) because that is when the airy disks reach the .03mm (30 micron) limit... but that's based on the "typical viewing standards." Diffraction begins to reduce contrast as soon as the airy disks begin to overlap, and it reduces recorded resolution when it overlaps 2 pixels entirely. The 38MP in red at f/5.6 assumes all of the pixels on the sensor are red sensitive (or monochrome). I.e. if you project 13.7 micron airy disks onto the 36x24mm area only 39M can fit.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Thanks for this Aymeric, can you point me to the lab tests, I'd love to give that a read. Thanks.

[@aymericb8450]

@@Coolwildlife1 Christopher Frost makes a lot sharpness test and generally stops at F11 or F16 when the effect of diffraction starts to be visible like in this video at 3:20. He published many sharpness tests. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqKafXmAbZVrfMU

[@hautehussey]

@@stevenkersting3494 this seems to contradict some of what you were saying in the video. In terms of megapixels.

[@stevenkersting3494]

@@hautehussey what does? That I said you can stop down to f/22 before the output image is diffraction limited? That is based upon the .03mm 35mm CoC standard, which requires less than 2MP in an output image (as I explained in the video). But that is also based upon average (20/40) human vision, viewing a typical (not high contrast) image, and viewing the image under typical (not ideal) lighting.

[@erikbrito1819]

What in the world did I just watch.? Sensor resolution is sensor resolution, a constant variable, the quality of the light emitted from the lens onto the sensor is a separate conversation.

[@Coolwildlife1]

I was of the same opinion Erik but upon reviewing the source data provided in the description which Steven's presentation is based on I personally can not refute the science. Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of real lenses. The point is that you cannot fully exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.

[@MOwhitail]

Yes and no. Sensor resolution may be constant but Steve isn't wrong that not all pixels are created equal. There are other variables that impact IQ and render some pixels more or less "useable"... lens refraction is the main variable he talks about (along with the resolution the human eye can effectively detect), and while I disagree with lots of the direction they took in this video, those "other variables" impact IQ by producing an "effective resolution" that may differ greatly from the "optimal resolution" of a given sensor. Just try putting a poor quality lens on a high resolution body... It doesn't produce the same quality of pixel as a high quality lens. At least I think thats his point, I could be wrong. The higher resolution sensor may just magnify a poor quality pixel, making it "worse".

[@m.maclean8911]

As soon as someone says “budget aside” the discussion becomes meaningless. Obviously if money is no object we’d all be using $20,000 lenses. And even more obvious is that if we could get closer we would! Why use a TC or use an 800mm lens if you can just walk a few steps? There are many reasons you cannot get closer, which is why we need TCs and telephoto lenses. I’ve seen incredible shots with the 800mm on a Z9. Nobody cares about all your technical babble … we care about results. If we can get the same results with a lens that is half the price, we will. And your cropping comments are ridiculous. Bottom line: you’ve convinced me to get the 800mm PF for my Z9.

[@Coolwildlife1]

The Z9 with the 800mm PF is an awesome combo. I was curious to know if you had the budget which $20,000 lens you'd be using if not the 800PF? The only two lenses in that category are the 400 f/2.8 TC and the 600mm f/4 TC. Many folks like the 800PF because of the weight, it's hand-holdable and as such wouldn't use a $20,000 lens even if they could afford it because they are too heavy. Of course that all depends on what you shoot and whether you handhold or use a tripod.

[@m.maclean8911]

Well my 800mm PF came in and I picked it up Friday night … love it! So unbelievably light. Very sharp. Still waiting for the 180-600mm that’s been backordered for months….

[@edjenni6761]

many thanks to you and Steven for this really great review, it is one I will watch again on my computer as my tired eyes on my laptop found the charts were a little hard to get everything and my brain needs a little time to absorb all the info. I do not feel I will be cancelling my 800mm order though as I know several spots where my 150-600 s Sigma lens falls a little short. 150-600s although served well is to be retired to some deserving soul and my birding kit will be the 100-400 and the 800mm with the 1.4 and 2x tc available. That has maxed my budget and I feel that is a pretty flexible combo and a definite upgrade, maybe I'll even be able to afford the 2.8 400mm someday, haha. It seems to me these new z mount lenses are maxing the technology until we get quantum sensors and quantum lenses, still years away from what I understand so our lenses are good for a while yet. Eventually I imagine we will have lenses that are the cameras with an attached viewfinder.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Thanks Ed, the 100-400 and 800mm will be an excellent combo for sure. Enjoy.

[@stevenkersting3494]

the 100-400 +2x (800/11) combo will certainly be more limited than other options; but it could also provide enough resolution to meet your actual requirements. In reality you would probably be just as well off not using the TC's and just cropping; as long as the image is taken with that in mind (as if a TC were added).

[@russellward178]

24 min in and wow thank you

[@adriannowak485]

I watched the first 15 minutes and I dont know what this is all about. I do like the technical sites of photography as well and there might be truth behind all this but lets talk about the real world. I do get incredible sharp images with the 800 PF. Even with the 1.4TC it delivers first class sharpness on 45 MP cameras. It is certainly much sharper than my 400mm 2.8 VR II F mount lens. Im more than happy to replace this insanely heavy lens. For me the 500mm and 800mm PF are the best lenses Nikon ever released. Dont listen to "look at the math. it cant be that good" because it is that good ... I shoot mostly small song birds and since I found myself cropping a lot from the 500 PF this is my absolut dream lens. Of course you can shoot mammals at insane distances with it where the image is likely to degrade from pollution or heat in the atmosphere. And of course your best option is then to get closer. But I cant recommend this lens enough for small birds.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Adrian, thank you for your feedback and you are absolutely right. The math and science behind the lens is one thing but the real world shooting is where it matters most. I use the 500pf as well and love it, even with the 1.4x. I'm glad to hear from you that the 800pf is yielding great images as well despite the math.

[@JohnWilliams-fc3xi]

thank-you, that was excellent - I had no idea of how fStop impacts the amount of possible data for the different wavelengths of light. Personally the weight, size of PF glass is a big plus.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Many people have no idea regarding that concept. I will say the weight of the PF lenses is great though, I love my 500PF.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

It might be the best birding lens on the market > 'IF' Nikon made a pro level APS-C mirrorless body. A straight 800mm is too short for me otherwise, and strapping a TC on it, would kind of defeat the purpose of shooting with a relatively fast 800mm lens.

[@Coolwildlife1]

I agree, it is fantastic for birds, nice and light so you can hand hold it all day and it's got the reach.

[@Chris_Wolfgram]

@@Coolwildlife1 Its funny, but regarding a tripod, no 1280mm combo is as light as my R7 + 800 F11..... Yet I ALWAYS use a tripod. Its not for the weight, obviously, but for stability with such a long setup, and also, once I find a tiny bird in such a narrow field of view, the tripod really helps to keep it there :)

[@michaelascher2693]

I think there is a logical fault in explaining the change of DOF by cropping in. The shown chart is maybe correct for the 3rd formula if you shoot directly on an crop sensor. If i shoot with an 400 f2.8 and get an area of 26.5 in which is in focus and my subject is near the edge but actually in focus, it gets not out of focus because of cropping in. So your point of cut the total area of whats in focus by 50% if you crop in is wrong. If i crop in post the image is still taken and had the 26.5 in during shooting.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Michael, I'd need Steven to comment on that one, he's the techy.

[@stevenkersting3494]

The Depth of "Focus" at the image plane does not change with cropping; but Depth of "Field" does (it is a perceptual characteristic based on how the image is viewed); and it doesn't matter if the crop is applied in-camera, or in post. I.e. if you crop the image and then view it at the same relative size as the uncropped image; then all of the details are larger, which makes any lack of sharpness/detail more apparent (less depth of field)... and there is always a limit to the recorded sharpness/detail; the only question is if yo enlarge/magnify it enough to see it. I have a comparison image (cropped in post) that shows exactly this effect on my FB education page: facebook.com/ThePhotographicAcademy/photos/pcb.3808444779179253/3808444315845966/ This is easy to test; you don't have to take my word for it....

[@MrBubinski777]

who cares what this chart says... real life results show this lens is absolutely amazing...

[@chipsrafferty8362]

Steven,I assume you have used and tested the 800 in order to make your conclusion you present here. Getting closer is understood by most of us who shoot wildlife,so nothing new here. Your technical knowledge is appreciated but an in hand review would be of more value to me.

[@stevenkersting3494]

I made no conclusions here, it wasn't a review of the lens. I did state a couple of things though... like the 800PF is certainly a better choice than cropping the 100-400 results, and that cropping the 400TC results will probably be at least as good *if the image is taken with the crop in mind* (as if a TC were added), and that the 400TC is certainly more versatile (very expensive and a little heavier). I did say I'm probably not buying either of them even though I could... but that is just a personal choice.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Chips. Ricci Chera and Steve Perry have posted up excellent reviews on image quality and bokeh from the 800PF and it performs very well. You'll want to check those out if you have not already. The point of the interview with Steven was not as a review of the lens but rather to bring awareness to how diffraction at narrow apertures limits resolution captured by today's high-resolution cameras like those at 46MP. I was glad he made me aware of this.

[@chipsrafferty8362]

@@Coolwildlife1 thank you for your reasoned response,much appreciated.I have ordered the Z9 and 800mm 6.3 as such I,like many users find so much of the advanced technical expertise to be superfluous to our needs,almost mega pixel peeping.As a side I watched both Steve and Ricci’s reviews,which at my level justified my decision to purchase both products. Thank you again.

[@miguelp726]

Muy interesante e instructivo. Muchas gracias!

[@Coolwildlife1]

You’re welcome Miguel.

[@chipsrafferty8362]

Too late….ordered……..paid for……..patience is a virtue……..

[@grincadorna4753]

Don’t over think 6.3 aperture as a hobbies i will wait for the light 💡

[@kaak4737]

I Know a guy who uses the z9 + tc1.7 + 500mm PF ( 850mm f9.5) and the usage of this tc wins clearly of cropping 1.7x extra.. you just need pixels on the subject at a distance and it has to be perfect in focus... 99% persent you can not dictate a bird for filling the frame.. that few chances a year that the bare 500 is to much he can count that on one hand. I also know a old lady who uses a Pentax K5 + 300mm f4.0 , has created a photo stage bird garden and has everything filling the frame, but always the same pieces , in quality it is far better Closer to the subject wins , if you need to crop much, the distances are alway difficult and the lens optics is very good, the TC wins from cropping by good light,otherwise the noise will ruin it. that are his findings.

[@stevenkersting3494]

Typically if the TC results are better it's because a higher SS or increased stability was used; for a cropped image to hold up it has to be taken with settings suitable for it (i.e. as if a TC were added). The only thing a TC really does is expand (magnify) the image circle, making the sensor act as a crop sensor; and that's what causes the reduction of light (smaller resulting f#).

[@kaak4737]

@@stevenkersting3494 There are more variables then mentioned in this film , see : Calculate Image Scale and Field of View -> Arc/sec/focal lengh/ pixel pitch/distance I had once a AFI 400mm f2.8 , no tc on the D200 10MpDX far better then with the D300 12Mp, close distance , infinity D300 was better .. D600 24Mp FF + 400mm + TC1.4x wors then the D810 without tc..at 3.3 mtr.. till 12mtr , 20mtr - infinity the D600 with tc was better.. pixel pitch with a super tele can lose lets say sand grains at 30 mtr with 24Mp becouse a lot will be between the pixels it self , more sand gains could be resolved at a few meters more or less ( with perfect focus of course ).. z9 500mm pf + tc not that much extra details at infinity.. and closest distance of the lens , but at the most common distance he uses 10-> 30 meters ther is more detail.TC14Eiii uses more light beams then the KENKO versions who cuts out a smaller pice of the "circle" At the end of the film the proof is allready give a bit, the sceen resolment theory... display a simple cropped jpg it could be not that sharp, if you zoom in a tiny bit , it is great. Only if the lens is good enough it can be noticed , if the lens is a old Sigma 150-500 f5/6.3 a tc is always useless.. you magnify blurriness . It is not only this diffaction story , there is more .. image sensors do have a grid , between this grid you can lose the finest details.. distance "x" with tc some advantages , distance Y it is useless.. same with more or less pixels.. a bad optical system is a lost case... The only thing a TC really does is expand (magnify) the image circle, making the sensor act as a crop sensor -> no tc 400mm f2.8 D850 45.7Mp = DX crop 600mm 19.5Mp -> TC 560mm f4.0 with 45.7 Mp not 19.5, so not a crop sensor , due to diffaction you will loose some becouse of the f4.0 story is separate from the pxelpitch arc/sec /distance theory .. At what combination will you have the maximum details at a distance in a specific(your most common/used) situation ? it is try and error and not just buy a z9 and a 800mm f6.3PF , A few less "mm", less pixels , tc no tc ?

[@kaak4737]

@@stevenkersting3494 If you copy paste this in google (youtube erases the comment if I paste a link) , you will find pictures of the z9 or z6ii + the superb 500mm f4.0 FL + the 1.4 + 2.0 tele converters stacked , making it 1400mm f11.0 , according to the difraction theory mentioned uin the film , 10Mp would be the max.. it could be far more in practice -> Eisvogel AF-S NIKKOR 500mm 1:4E FL ED VR + TC14III + TC20III Bartmeise AF-S NIKKOR 500mm 1:4E FL ED VR + TC14III + TC20III Brennweite 1400mm

[@stevenkersting3494]

The size of an airy disk at the image plane (sensor) is also the minimum size of detail that can be resolved from the scene at minimum distance. At longer distances it is the minimum relative size that can be resolved. Your writing is hard for me to follow; a Kenko 1.4x and a Nikon 1.4x bothuse/transmit the same amount of light (same resulting f#)... if you are comparing the Nikon 1.4 to a Kenko 2x, then yeah; the sensor gets 1 stop less light with the Kenko.

[@kaak4737]

@@stevenkersting3494 Yes kenko/Nikon F stop loss is the same, the resolving power is not, Nikon tc14e uses more "information" from the edges, more of the resolving circle of the airy disk for creating this magnification ,the front element is bigger,( like Canon, Sony), more light consuming elements, Kenko just "cut-out" the center of the resolving part of the airy disk, magnify this small circle , spread it back to Fullframe, light beams that are not used get lost.. , two different oprouches, two different price tags , and it is always a combination... lens + tc ( digital coatings/generation difference) In our test group we had a superb first generation EF300mm f2.8LUSM , great results on colorslide film, when used later on in the digital "world" the results were very bad.. the canon extender 1,4 version 2 with modern digital coatings did solve all the internal reflections between the "old" analog lens and the new 90D image sensor , this combination gives excellent results.. TC sometimes it works, sometimes it does not... The german photographer who uses 2 tc's stacked on a 500mm for 1400mm f11.. seems to see benefits., . croping the image +/- 70% the same details at that distance? we will never know. -> The size of an airy disk at the image plane (sensor) is also the minimum size of detail that can be resolved-> 6Mp or 61Mp sensor does matter , then there are a lot of other variables like , lens quality, focal length , high, low contrast scene , camera shake, DOF, focus, TC or no TC etc etc. It is a puzzle

[@baronsilverton6504]

The 100-400 4.5 -5.6 is half the price of the 800 6.3 and the difference is only like $3500 so this is worth a 2 stop differential pretty clearly. By the logic presented here, the Canon 800mm f/11 lens is a complete piece of junk - yet many are using and praising this cheap 800mm lens. The 800 6.3 from Nikon is $6500 and is only a third stop less than the Canon 5.6 with is $17000, with worse MTF charts. The notion that you cannot get good resolution files shooting with this lens is largely academic and theoretical. The red wavelength is the least used for BIF photography so it is hardly a large limitation. Nevertheless, the main advantage of the 800 6.3 over the 600 F/4 FL is the light weight and the hand holdable nature. The 600 is much bigger and heavier and with a TC even more so. People with the 800 6.3 will simply get shots that you will NOT get with a larger 600 f/4 - due to maneuverability and ease of use. If you don't get the shot then resolution is irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, i think this discussion was very interesting and I watched it all, but it is largely theoretical and in reality people like Ricci Chara and Steve Perry are getting stellar shots hand held with the 800mm 6.3 - they are wall hangers so the theory on the resolution is largely academic. The 800 6.3 is a tremendous bang for the buck proposition - I would say it is a paradigm shift in long telephoto lenses - is is 33% lighter a couple inches shorter and only 33% of the price of the competitor's 800 and only 1/3 stop slower with better MTF's - Nikon has made a winner and anyone that is into wild life photography - especially BIF - have now been given an opportunity to "shoot with the big boys" where they never would have been able to before with the price barrier of 800 5.6 lenses of old. Hats off to Nikon.

[@Coolwildlife1]

I am in total agreement with your assessment Baron. I have a friend shooting with the 800PF as I write this and she tells me it is a game-changer. From the images I see her posting up it looks amazing as do the images that Steve and Ricci put up. With the release of the Z9 and 800mm Nikon has hit a home run IMHO.

[@baronsilverton6504]

@@Coolwildlife1 Wasn't sure where you stood in that conversation, but glad to see that reason won the day for you too :)

[@alanwilder4693]

Great presentation. The main point is except in rare situations where you can't get close enough to your subject, 800 is too much focal length for most shooting situations where you'd be might wind up cropping too much of your subject. Additionally, as pointed out, not only are you magnifying blur from subject motion you are also increasing atmospheric blur. That isn't to say an 800 is a bad choice and it's light weight and relatively low price makes it attractive, but first consider what subject matter you'll need to shoot to make it a worthwhile purchase. If you only have a Z body and you need a super-tele, the Z 400/2.8 TC makes the most sense given the IQ, size, weight and versatility assuming you can afford it. On the subject of usefulness of high MP cameras, the main advantage is the ability to significantly crop if for example a BIF is too far away. I don't expect to create an uncropped image at 46 MP which well exceeds what is needed for uncropped viewing or printing.

[@1sim2clo]

For birds situations where you can’t get close enough are the norm and certainly not the exception ! And for other wildlife I prefer to keep the longest distance I can so to bother them less, even if it means lower IQ.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Thanks Alan, I'm glad to have you join the discussion.

[@1sim2clo]

But yes if the 400 f.28 was 12000$ less and 500g less I would certainly not think about the 800mm pf ! Sadly it is not.

[@alanwilder4693]

@@1sim2clo Depends on what and where you're shooting. At Conowingo Dam where I use to shoot bald eagles, they don't fly as close as several years past, so a 600/4 + TC-14E or TC-17E was typically required. In that case the 800/6.3 would be very nice especially if done handheld so a gimbal support wouldn't be mandatory. Although for proper tracking it might still be best to use support given the high magnification. I'm sure there are lots of other birds or wildlife situations where getting close is an issue. Only the shooter would know his real needs.

[@stevenkersting3494]

​@@alanwilder4693 Understand that adding a TC only magnifies the output image circle, which only spreads the image/light out farther. It effectively makes the sensor act as a crop sensor. That's essentially what a longer FL does as well; which is why a 400/2.8 becomes a 600/4 or an 800/5.6 (by adding stronger telephoto elements). Often, if you take the picture with the crop in mind (i.e. as if a TC were added) you would get better results w/o the external/unmatched TC; almost certainly no worse. But, the 800PF is a Z lens designed to take advantage of the wider mount as well as enabling 5 axis coordinated stabilization...

[@gregoryrogalsky6937]

This guy is all over the place. To it was like listening to a globe lover who tries to prove how the earth isn't flat and not moving by math.. But cant show me the curve. :) 8 inches per mile squared lol.. As far as the discussion. And cross rationalization he goes through to snipe the new Nikkor 800 6.3 ... Cropping is something that photographers do who don't have enough focal length or don't/cant close enough to the subject. Magnifying the subject with a longer lens isn't cropping. It made me cringe when he said he can do it in post.. lol Ya right sure you can. Clearly this guy is sweet on his new 400 2.8 AF.. and his 2 X converter.. Which if I am not mistaken is way more expensive and heavy than Nikkon new 800 6.7. As for me, I am still using my Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AI-s , Nikkor 600 4.0 IF-ED Ais, and the 400 3.5 IF-ED Ais , Nikkor 300 2.8 IF-ED AI's , Nikkor 200 f2.0 IF-ED AIs which all can be had for less than the price of a single new Nikkor Super Telephoto like the 400 2.8 or even the new Nikkor 800 6.3 . :) ..He did make some some interesting points. I agree it's good advice for photographers to work on their long lens technique. Having focus peaking on the mirrorless bodies makes manual focusing totally doable. On the ethics side.. Even though being further away puts more air between you and the subject. The fact is the closer you are to a wild subject means your causing more stress on the animal. unless your working from a blind.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Gregory I appreciate you commenting in this discussion. You've got some nice lenses on the go. Steven is using the older 400 2.8 f-mount lens adapted to the Z9. I think the image he cropped in on at 400% is a testament to what sharpness can be achieved in post by cropping if good technique is applied. Focus peaking is a real help in that regard for sure.

[@patricksmith2553]

Agree. Even if he’s right about diffraction or whatever, this is going to be a phenomenal lens. The 800mm FL is the sharpest, and best image quality lens I’ve ever used. Now the only reason I didn’t but one, is versatility. I prefer a shorter option and use a TC-14E III or other TC. I’ve always been a 400mm f/2.8 type of guy, I had the AF-S, AF-S II, VR and 400mm FL. I only switched last year to the 500mm f/4E VR FL for additional weight savings and hand holding ability. I use the 1.4x TC-14E III. So I already have close to an 800mm f/6.3, in that I’m at 700mm f/5.6 and on a 45mp sensor, I can crop slightly without losing anything. I will not be buying a 800pf, simply for those reasons above. I just prefer to have a shorter option, and I’m in SoCal where you can get close to the birds/action. Distance and vibrations do negatively effect 800mm lenses, for sure, as does atmospheric conditions. But talking people out of this lens over stupid technical problems like those…is a fools errand. The truth is, this lens will have amazing image quality and nobody should say otherwise. Plus I disagree about the VR, it does come in handy, even for fast action. The newest 2015-present VR systems do not require you to ever turn them off. So even at fast shutter speeds they can help. They can help in Sports mode, to stabilize your viewing pleasure. Or they can offset your personal body movements, all without any negative effects. I never, ever turn my VR off on my 24-70mm VR, 70-200mm FL or 500mm FL. I’m definitely a fan of VR, it’s way more useful than was described in this video. So I completely disagree with the premise of the video above, it’s ridiculous. Get out there and make great images, the 800pf will be awesome. It’s not for everyone, but for those who do know what they are doing, it will help them to make great images with it.

[@stevenkersting3494]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I wasn't sniping the 800/6.3; I stated it will be better than using the 100-400/5.6 and cropping... and probably marginally better than cropping the 400/2.8; but there are a lot of reasons why it won't be that much better with the higher resolution cameras.

[@stevenkersting3494]

@@patricksmith2553 I really wasn't trying to talk anyone into or out of anything... Bill's choice of labeling the video was a bit inflammatory I guess; but that's what gets views. BTW, I do agree with VR improving viewfinder stability for tracking... but unfortunately lens based VR also degrades IQ because the elements are off-center, and lens based VR is required to offset the larger type of movements you are talking about. Because of the image degradation the Z9 implements "lens centering" when VR is active; unless you choose sport mode.

[@patricksmith2553]

@@stevenkersting3494 It’s okay I was maybe a bit harsh to you. We can disagree on things, while remaining civil. I respect you and you’re welcome to your own opinions, as would be anyone. I’ve tested, others have tested modern VR in “lens based VR” as you call it. There is no longer any discernible loss of IQ from lens based VR. Steve Perry and countless others, including myself have tested this. It’s no longer an issue, I have shot 100k images with VR turned on in the past year or two. With absolutely no concerns or los of image quality. You could or maybe should turn off VR on a tripod, if you’ve locked it down. But even with a gimbal head, you probably should leave it on? I dunno I only use my tripod a few times a year and I use an RRS BH-55 ball head and leave VR on Normal. Again I’ve seen zero proof that it negatively effected any images. Anyways, no hard feelings. I didn’t mean to sound rude, or like a troll. I just disagree with the title and premises here. Mainly because I’ve used the Canon and Nikon 800mm lenses. The Nikon in particular stood out to me, it’s a phenomenal lens. The new 800pf appears to be close as far as the MTF charts are concerned. So I’ve zero doubts it will perform beyond expectations. The only people with high expectations are people who have used these types of lenses before. So I think everyone will be pleased with this lens, it’s a gray deal as well. It’s much more innovative, lighter weight and much, much cheaper compared to the Canon 800mm RF. Which is basically an older DSLR era 400mm f/2.8 with an adapter and 2x TC attached. It’s like a Frankenstein monsters lens, for $19,000? Yeah, so I guess I sort of lost my mind watching this. You should’ve focused a little more on all of the positives. Instead of making people confused or thinking this is not a great lens? But you say that you name the video or didn’t intend for that, so I can forgive you. It’s just my opinion that it’s clickbait and making something out of nothing, but it’s all good. I do applaud you and others for putting yourself out there though, it’s not easy. You’re making content and live streaming, you’re bound to make mistakes or bad videos I guess.

[@bigboi36]

Don't think for one minute that Nikon will not deliver a 500/600 | f4 and an 800mm | 5.6. Trust and believe these pro lenses will be made for the Z system. What I would like to see is better materials if you are going to pay a premium price point. #CARBONFIBER

[@penrand]

Really interesting although I had to watch bits of it over a few times. I did have the Z7ii but found it to be too slow for wildlife so only have the Z6ii now which I pair with the 500mm PF + 1.4TC. I am lusting for a 400mm 2.8 and searching for an F mount in the used columns! Thanks for presenting this and to the naysayers, I call them out to prove it's wrong.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Thanks Penny, I'm glad you found it interesting.

[@TheRatgin]

Very interesting

[@Coolwildlife1]

Yes, should help you in making your lens decision.

[@jazinzlaty4823]

The best thing about this lens is that more used proper lenses will become available

[@eric00214]

Have to say it's is ABSOLUTELY STELLAR on the Z9. If you can't get insanely sharp images with crazy high detail, then you need to work on your long lens technique. I was able to get tack sharp fox kits 30 minutes after sunset at 1/50 f6.3 ISO6400 Hand Held and got a very clean image after minimal noise reduction. With just good light, not even great light and the sharpness and detail is of the highest quality. As far as the 400f2.8 TC and using a 2x TC is not better then the 800PF and it's quite noticeable. This is not correct or good advice here. Also, real world use and results means 100% more then MFT's and charts. I pay no mind to this stuff but everything to your results in actual taking photos in the field in real use.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Agree, the 800mm is a great combo with the Z9. You may wish to check Brad Hill's lens comparison of the 400 2.8 TC and 2X tele and the 800 PF. He dives deep into his testing methodology. Here's a snippet from his results so those with the 400 2.8 also have a great 800mm lens when they need to go long. There was only ONE aperture (f6.3) at which there were noticeable differences in either image sharpness or bokeh between the Z 800mm PF and the Z 400mm f2.8S + Z TC-2x. Those differences? At f6.3 the Z 800mm PF was very slightly sharper than the Z 400mm f2.8S + Z TC-2x, but the bokeh of the Z 400mm f2.8S + TC was slightly better (slightly smoother out-of-focus zones, especially the out-of-focus zones closer to the focal plane). I want to stress these were very slight differences...you'd notice the sharpness difference only when pixel-peeping on a lower-resolution display that maximizes image sharpness differences

[@salehalrashdan]

This is too confusing

[@Coolwildlife1]

I get it Sal, we intentionally went pretty deep on this topic.

[@hautehussey]

This guy takes some slightly misunderstood concepts and goes off on all sorts of incorrect conclusions. And therefore takes some viewers even further into incorrect territory. And further complicating things, some of the conclusions are actually correct, just not how they got there in some cases!

[@MSchumacherfan]

Horrible audio 👎🏻

[@Coolwildlife1]

Thanks for the feedback George, is that on my side or Steven's side that you are referring to?

[@Zeppy007]

Your guest is a terrible educator/presenter who delivers his content in a very confusing and distracting manner...I think I will take Steve Perry and Ricci Talks advice, thanks 🙂

[@나비넥타이내과]

Poor interview.

[@randomtalks1988]

So boring video

[@lcador9]

Your guest may well be correct but he is a terrible educator/presenter who delivers his content in a confusing and distracting manner. The impact is seen in many of the comments. He did nothing for the credibility of your channel nor what could have been a clearly informative topic.

[@stevenkersting3494]

I agree it's not well put together. I was expecting it to be a question and answer session... I hadn't really prepared to make a presentation.

[@Coolwildlife1]

@@stevenkersting3494 That's my bad for not speaking to you beforehand regarding the format.

[@vladepast4936]

to follow your logic you can try get really close to a subject with your 50mm lens and you'll have the same image as you could with 800mm lens.. GOdd luck!

[@danielpoiree6705]

Could it be that the claims in this video were anticipated and mitigate by Nikon? Search: Nikon article 000006500. I find it odd that I can’t find anyone who has used the lens who claims to see such problems in the photos.

[@Coolwildlife1]

Hi Daniel, Steven was not saying there is an issue with the lens. I have a friend shooting with it as I write this and she tells me it is a game changer. Steven was speaking to how diffraction at narrow apertures limits resolution captured by today's high-resolution cameras like those at 46MP and that happens with any long focal length lens and across all brands.